![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Climate change discourse ranges from an acknowledgement of ancestral prophecy to the most urgent crisis of our time. If the terminology – words, concepts, and expressions – of discourse is understood to reflect a writer’s values, perspectives, and ways of knowing, then it is important to compare the terminology used by various writers to understand key value differences. This paper provides an initial exploration into the explicit and implicit differences in terminology surrounding climate adaptation planning from the perspective of federal agencies and Tribal Nations as represented in two climate adaptation guides. As the act of utilising the same words but in different ways will likely result in conflict, we also explored the links between the values-based differences in terminology with three policies – one written from a Tribal perspective and two that govern federal agencies’ stewardship of cultural resources – to assess the implications for climate adaptation of ancestral heritage located on federal lands. It is important to note that the space to compare terminology between federal and Tribal perspectives is vast; though this paper represents only an introductory step into this space, the results demonstrate a clear need to develop a process of co-constructing a shared climate adaptation terminology.
Acknowledgments
The authors are deeply grateful for everyone included in the process of creating this paper, including Casey Thornbrugh, Nisogaabo Ikwe (Melonee Montano), Rob Croll, Kristen Schmitt, Hannah Panci, Sara Smith, the Traditional Knowledge working group from the 2020 National Tribal and Indigenous Climate Conference, and the NPS Region 1 Tribal and Cultural Affairs team. We thank you for your time and insight.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2023.2300175.
Notes
1. Baird, Critical Theory, 4–16; Henderson and Seekamp, “Battling the Tides,” 220; Rockman, “An NPS Framework,” 37; Sesana, Gagnon, Ciantelli, et al., “Climate Change Impacts,” 2.
2. Carmichael, Wilson, Namarnyilk, et al., “Local and Indigenous Management,” 233; Manrique, Corral, and Pereira, “Climate-Related Displacements.”; Seekamp and Jo, “Resilience and Transformation,” 42–43.
3. Hotchkiss, Seekamp, and McGill, “Strategies for Meaningful Engagement,” 413–414; Youdelis, “They Could Take You Out for Coffee,” 2–5.
4. Klenk, Fiume, Meehan, et al., “Local Knowledge,” 1–2.
5. Bloom and Deur, “Reframing Native Knowledge,” 3.
6. Whyte, “On the Role,” 9–10; Whyte, “Too Late,” 3–4.
7. Makondo and Thomas, “Climate Change Adaptation,” 89–90; Vogel, Moser, Kasperson, and Dabelko, “Linking Vulnerability,” 351.
8. National Park Service, Policy Memorandum, 14–02.
9. Baird, 63; Morgan, “Descendant Communities, Heritage Resource Law, and Heritage Areas,” 199–211; Smith, Archaeological Theory, 2–3.
10. Bloom and Deur, 18–19.
11. Makondo and Thomas, 83–84; Wildcat, “Introduction,” 511; Morel, Megarry, Potts, et al. “Global Research and Action Agenda,” 1, 35; Orlove, Dawson, Sherpa, et al., ICSM CHC White Paper I, 15, 20.
12. United Nations, “Indigenous Peoples.”; Zurba and Papadopoulos, “Indigenous Participation,” 91.
13. Smith, 2–3.
14. Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History, 7–14.
15. King, “Co-management or Contracting?”, 480.
16. Hinds, “Twenty-Five Years Later,” 142–143.
17. Carroll, Rodriguez-Lonebear, and Martinez, “Indigenous Data Governance,” 1–2.
18. Canby, Indian Law in a Nutshell.
19. Walter and Hamilton, “A Cultural Landscape Approach.”
20. Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places, 1–7.
21. Brown and Mitchell, “Culture and Nature,” 212–213.
22. Stern and Coleman, “The Multidimensionality of Trust,” 125.
23. Dunbar-Ortiz, 13.
24. Dockry, Gutterman, and Davenport, “Building Bridges,” 129; Gregory, Failing, and Harstone, “Meaningful Resource Consultations,” 36.
25. Manning, Trust in the Land; Flores and Russell, “Integrating Tribes and Culture,” 177–184.
26. Berkes, “Evolution of Co-management.”
27. Paterson, “Tribal Consultation.”
28. Richardson, “Interpreting Consultation.”
29. Husk, “Scattered to the Winds?”, 295.
30. Nicholas and Wylie, “Archaeological Finds.”
31. Berkes.
32. Bussey, Davenport, Emery, and Carroll. “A Lot of It,” 97–98.
33. Secretary of the Interior, Order No. 3342
34. United Nations; Zurba and Papadopoulos, 91.
35. Norström, Cvitanovic, Löf, et al., “Principles,” 182–190.
36. Rockman, Morgan, Ziaja, et al. “Cultural Resources.”
37. Tribal Adaptation Menu Team, “Dibaginjigaadeg.”
38. Ibid.,11.
39. Ibid., 42.
40. Ibid., 15.
41. Ibid., 17.
42. Ibid., 37.
43. Ibid., 42.
44. Ibid., 33, 40.
45. Rockman et al., 16.
46. United States Department of the Interior, “National Park Service Organic Act and its Implementation Through Daily Park Management” (2005); more information about the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council is found at visitorusemanagement.nps.gov.
47. Tribal Adaptation Menu Team, 2.
48. Ibid, 5.
49. Ibid, 25.
50. Ibid, 9, 16.
51. Ibid, 10, 16, 49, 50.
52. Ibid, 11.
53. Ibid, 12.
54. Ibid, 11.
55. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen, The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press, 2015.
56. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3002.
57. Ibid, §3002.
58. Ibid, §3002.
59. Ibid, §3002.
60. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3004.
61. Ibid, §3004.
62. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, Guidelines for Considering Traditional Knowledges in Climate Change Initiatives, 7.
63. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 5.
64. On November 15, 2021, the US White House shared a memorandum for US department and agency heads titled “Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Federal Decision Making. This memorandum stated that Traditional Knowledge is only to be considered in federal decisions when facilitated through relationships with Tribal Nations and Native communities and in ways that respect knowledge holders to control access, dictate the use of, and benefit from its use.
65. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, iii.
66. Ibid, iii.
67. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 7.
68. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3004.
69. Ibid, §3001.
70. Ibid, §3002.
71. Ibid, §3002.
72. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “Implementation of Standard-Setting Instruments | Part I | General Monitoring | Comprehensive Report by the Director-General on UNESCO’s Standard-Setting Instruments.” Paris, August 16, 2021.
73. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 6.
74. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, §1.
75. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, ii.
76. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
77. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, §469a-2.
78. Ibid, §469a-2.
79. It is critical to note based on the US Constitution and its amendments to American Indian Law, Native Americans are considered a population of citizens whose interests in federal lands and projects remain outside of the US public.
80. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3002.
81. Ibid, §3005.
82. Ibid, §3006.
83. Ibid, §3005.
84. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 8.
85. Ibid, 3.
86. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, viii.
87. Ibid, 6.
88. Ibid, vii.
89. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, §469c-1.
90. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, iii.
91. Ibid, vii.
92. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 16.
93. Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, §469a.
94. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3002.
95. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 10.
96. Ibid, 7.
97. Ibid, 12.
98. Ibid, 2.
99. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3001.
100. Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup, 3.
101. Ibid, 4.
102. Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
103. Graeber, Toward an Anthropology of Value. New York: Palgrave Press, 2001; Graeber’s insight here, based on Saussure’s work, is that nouns are part of systems of meaning. Individual meaning is derived through their relationships with other nouns that are either present in the text or discourse, or ostensibly missing. We see this here in the instance of our comparisons between the different Native and Federal Climate Change frameworks.
104. Bloch, “The Unthinkable and the Unseen: Community Archaeology and Decolonizing Social Imagination at Okeeheepkee, or the Lake Jackson Site.” Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 10, no. 1 (2014): 87.
105. Smith et al., “Community/Agency Trust and Public Involvement in Resource Planning.” Society & Natural Resources 26, no. 4 (2013): 455.
106. Tsosie, “The Legal and Policy Dimensions of Indigenous Data Sovereignty,” Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (2020): 204–225
107. Tsosie, “The Climate of Environmental Justice: Taking Stock; Indigenous People and Environmental Justice: The Impact of Climate Change,” University of Colorado Law Review, 2007, March 16–17.
108. Dockry et al., “Building Bridges: Perspectives on Partnership and Collaboration from the US Forest Service Tribal Relations Program,” Journal of Forestry 116, no. 2 (2017, September): 123–132
109. McDaniels and Gregory, “Learning as an Objective Within a Structured Risk Management Decision Process.” Environmental Science & Technology 38, no. 7 (2004): 1921–1926.
110. Brunswig et al., ‘Re-enfranchising Native Peoples in the Southern Rocky Mountains: Integrated Contributions of Archaeological and Ethnographic Studies on Federal Lands,’ Post-Colonial Perspectives in Archaeology (2009): 55–69.
111. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, §3001.
112. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Request for the United States to Implement and Comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Resolution #18–50 2018 Annual Convention of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Worley, Idaho, 2018.
113. Secretary of the Interior, Order No. 3342: Identifying Opportunities for Cooperative and Collaborative Partnerships with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the Management of Federal Lands and Resources (2016).
114. Hendricks, “A Turnaround at Grand Portage,” National Parks Magazine (2008): 52–57.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Selin Oh
Selin Oh (they, them) collaborated on this paper as part of an undergraduate research assistantship funded by the University of Chicago. Selin is a recent graduate of the University of Chicago and the departments of History and Environmental Studies. They are currently based in Chicago, unceded land of the Council of the Three Fires: Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi Nations.
Courtney Hotchkiss
Courtney Hotchkiss (she/her) collaborated on this paper as part of her doctoral program in the Deparmtent of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at NC State University where she served as a graduate research assistant (funded by the US National Park Service Climate Change Response Program through US Department of Interior Inter-Agency Agreement P17AC00794) and as global change fellow (funded by the US Geological Survey Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center). She currently serves as a postdoctoral research scholar at NC State University.
Isaac St. John
Isaac St. John (he/him) is the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians.
Michael Durglo
Michael Durglo, Jr. (he/him) is the Climate Change Coordinator for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
David Goldstein
David Goldstein (he/him) is the Tribal and Cultural Affairs Lead for Department of Interior Region 1 with the US National Park Service.
Erin Seekamp
Erin Seekamp is the Goodnight Distinguished Professor of Coastal Resilience and Sustainability in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at NC State University, and currently serves as the Director of NC State’s Coastal Resilience and Sustainability Initiative.